Crane Co. v. Jeanette G. Poage

The Due Process Clause requires States to adopt procedures that prevent arbitrary punitive damages awards. Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346, 352 (2007). “Exacting appellate review” is one such procedural requirement. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003). Multiple courts have held that this review must consider factors that both support and undermine an award. The court below, in contrast, focused exclusively on factors supporting the punitive damages award. Moreover, the court upheld a $10 million award that was twelve times the already substantial compensatory damages award, without even considering the multiple awards petitioner has faced and may continue to face in similar suits. In doing so, the court deepened the confusion that abounds in the lower courts regarding the “constitutional outer limit[s]” on punitive damages awards for defendants who face substantial liability in multiple suits arising out of a single course of conduct. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 515 n.28 (2008). The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Due Process Clause requires appellate review that considers factors undermining the reasonableness of a punitive damages award?

2. Whether the Due Process Clause prohibits a punitive damages award that is more than ten times a substantial compensatory damages award against a defendant who faces multiple suits arising from a single course of conduct? (i)